Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect (New Paper by Judy Wood/John Hutchison)

How can a Tower that is exploding upward and outward have any mass to crush anything? What some people just fail to realize is that as you watch the
top of the Towers turn into dust, there is NO massive weight anywhere; it was dustified too fast to have any effect of crushing anything below it.
The ' section ' of 30 some odd stories that tilted and then fell straight down was turned into dust as it entered the cloud: It never reappears and
is dust just like the rest.

LOOK for Pete's sake!! The videos show it clearly: The Towers are jumping up far into the sky exploding..how does this equal a collapse? In a
collapse the building crumbles in the direction of the weakest point: The ' section ' should have fallen over. But does it? NO!! What does it do? It
simply STOPS the falling!! And then it falls down and turns to dust!!

Watch it a few times and it will sink in: This is no collapse: We are seeing the Hutchinson effect for sure.

reply to post by eyewitness86
Can you point out which direction the intense energy beam is coming from?
And then consider what would happen to those rather large chunks of solid matter falling through the beam which would have to be 'dustified' also in
mid air and in full view for all the cameras.

I'm not trying to be difficult but I just can't see any sign of such a beam in this picture or any others. That dark smoke cloud above the falling
tower was there for quite a while before it fell.

To anyone who demands "the smoking gun" proof about 9/11: If there was such obvious proof that the people of America would wake up, you would not
be the first to know.
The purpose of this thread and any 9/11 thread is not to battle back and forth about semantics, but to logically disect the issues.
There will not be one big smoking gun, but rather tracers coming from the direction of the truth. That is many little facts and "coincidences" when
put together, show the bigger picture.
In the DEW theory, the smoking gun is the volume of material that was left at ground zero. The pile of rubble was not even 1 story above ground
level. Take into account there were 7 underground levels, the bottom of which was relatively in tact, and we are talking about 7 stories of material.
We should expect to see the pile of rubble over 12% of the original height, which is typical in controlled demolitions ( I am only using controleld
demolition as an example because the entire building was obliterated, there was no "chunk" of foundation or building at the bottom which we should
expect to see based on presumptions of the official story). That being said, 12% of 110 is roughly 13. So we should expect to see 6-7 stories above
ground leve of material from each tower piled up. Where did that insane volume of material go? Even the controlled demolition theory does not
account for this. The controlled demolition theory is propogated by Steven Jones, who himself has worked on DEWs at Los Alamos. How convenient that
he shows you all the right pictures and information while ignoring huge facts?

-1400 cars in the area of WTC were burnt in a very odd manner, some of these cars on FDR drive, which is several blocks away.

-there was no damage to the concrete structure under the WTC, which should be expected if those two towers "fell" onto it - can only be explained by
the building pulverizing itself in mid-air, again, why?

-there are videos, which can be accessed from www.drjudywood.com, that clearly show steal beams turning to DUST in mid-air - no other explanation
other than DEW can account for this.

All of this being said, I think we should make a huge list of all of the anomolies and things that seem to contradict the official story, and check
each of the other theories against them. I think controlled demolition accounts for more than the official story, but still overlooks too much.
Can we agree on a few main theories that COULD be likely?
1. Official Story
2. Controlled Demolition
3. DEW
Are there any other theories that are legitimately debated that I have overlooked? CG and/or holograms seem pretty well debunked, but that aspect
altogether is irrelevant and has no bearing on WHY the buildings collapsed, because it still could be DEW with or without CG.

Pilgrum, that's an asinine comment. We are talking about weapons that we theoretically understand and that we know are in existence. If the
information on how a DEW works and how to build it were there, anyone could have this insane technology. It is tightly gaurded knowledge. For all we
know, it could be an invisible beam of energy. Maybe there was a target placed in each of the towers, and all they did was shoot the targets when the
time was right? I don't think its fair to try to discredit people by asking questions that you yourself cannot answer, even if you wanted to.

I think you should answer my question about the 1,400 burnt cars.

Or the one about the volume of material that was left?

I'm not trying to be hostile, but I feel like rhetorical questions like the ones you asked only need to arguements and not discussion. Thanks.

That powerful DEW anti-gravity levitation coupled with high electromagnetic energy force, pulling those continuous massive support beams apart from
their connecting collars, is why the twin towers fell exactly the way they did in controlled demolition.

Had more power been used, there would not have been steel left to identify, much less concrete and asbestos dust exploded outward in pyroclastic
blast.

That was a very small DEW use relative to what could have transpired with more powerful energy. No real radioactivity of any consequence to explain
away, such as that from and H- or A-bomb, of which both work on the same principle. As does TNT controlled demolition implosion without the
radioactivity as well.

DC for 12 miles out from the Pentagon was at high radioactivity level consistent with the use of DU in cruise missiles.

I agree. What ELSE could account for what is seen? Nothing. Cars turned upside down, exactly like the Hutchinson effect. The cars that are not
upside down have their engine blocks gone, and paint peeling..on parts of the car and others are perfect! This is the effect seen in action, no doubt.
This IS the big secret of 9-11: NO cave dweller could use our DEW weapons, now could they? it has to be US, the MOSSAD and the Neocon black ops guys
doing their thing.

There is really NO other way to explain the effects seen, is there? No, there is not. Only the most ridiculous and least likley excuses can be
offered to try and explain what is seen. I watch the Towers leaping up into the air, and others call this collapse..unreal.

Here is what I think happened: When the conventional charges and thermate went off at the sections close to the ' strike zone ' started, that when
they turned the beam on. The top of the Towers, in both cases, near the strike zones, begin to fall as if the underneath had simply given way and
offered NO resistance. At that monent, they tripped the switch and turned the beams on. We see the tops of the Towers JUMPING UP into the air, so
energetic is the reaction. It is NOT falling, it is leaping up far into the air and exposing outwards. HOW on earth can anyone call that a
collapse?

A building that turns into dust is NOT a likley candidate for the excuses given. The direction oif the beams were from above. There is no other way.
We see the TOPS of the Towers leaping up. A poster above asks me about the direction and it has to be from above. the sections that start to fall and
then turn to dust are SMOKING they are so hot!!

Take a look at some of the steel outer sections being peeled off the Towers and fall down: They are streaming smoke and show signs of EXTREME
temperatures, when they shoud not have had any high temsp on them at all, if they were simply reacting to fire and gravity. The outer supports fall
away, and are blown far from the Towers, by some energy that CANNOT be explained by fire and gravity.

WHY do so many people believe that the Towers would lose ALL, totally ALL, of its resistance and blow apart as it comes down? What on earth would
cause the core and all the other steel to lose all strength and all at ONCE? ONLY a DEW can answer this.

There is simply no answer other than DEW. Nothing else even comes close to providing an answer. The perps had a great idea: Use technology that they
wil not even admit exists to accomplish the deed. Only a very few people in the entire military could have access to that kind of control..very few.
And those that did on 9-11 used it to wipe out the WTC complex and accomplish the NEOCON PNAC goals all at once.

If you add up all the pieces, there really is no other answer. Nothing else comes close. DEW all the way.

This video is the smoking gun. www.drjudywood.com...
Notice the steel beam on the left side. As it is falling, it literrally turns into dust!

Pilgrum, I think you should realize that it is basically common knowledge the "official story" is just a theory. This is supported by the fact that
NIST could not determine why there was a global collapse. They were brought in to determine "the cause of collapse" for the towers, on the
assumption that no explosives or weapons of any sort were present. Essentially, they took a bunch of smart people, gave them no information or
evidence or samples to analyze, and asked them why the building started to collapse. Its all just theories. Now it is up to free thinking people
that understand physics and reality to determine which of the theories are likely. As an engineer, I cannot accept the official story, its defies
physics. I used to buy into the controlled demolition theory, but as I looked into it more, there are too many strange pieces of information not
explained by CD. While I am not claiming to know what type of DEW was used and how it was exectured, I am claiming that this type of weapon is the
only thing that can explain these other mysteries.

I have a high suspicion some but not much conventional controlled demolitions was used. It would all be at the top, which is foolish to do in
controlled demolitions implosions with TNT. As foolish as placing TNT only at the bottom, which can result in a shorter building still standing or a
shorter toppled building.

The leaning south tower of Pisa is why I still suspect some controlled demolitions but not much. I contend it was to make people think that planes
and jet fuel collapsed the buildings the way they fell. Yet, those who know science know what would actually happen, if a building is unevenly
compromised. That portion of a building will lean to the side of compromise.

Not so with the leaning south tower of Pisa. It went to the outside not the side of alleged impact, which was at least 3 stories below the rift
created by an alleged 767 impact. That never happened either. It is self-evident that never happened.

When steel is impacted and penetrated, it bends in the same direction a projectile is headed not in the opposite direction. Nor is it clean cut and
still vertical as appears on WTC 1 in photographs all over the Internet.

Plus, there was no actual debris seen inside the hole once the smoke did clear, and long prior to the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 to view any, including
any alleged plane remains, which should have left at least 50' of plane filling both holes.

I find it too odd there are no photos of any hole in WTC 2. What people see is what appears to be a black hole, which may not be a hole at all. It
is only seen from a distance and very little has been photographed and displayed for any currently alleged WTC 2 exterior compromises.

Holograms can look as real as actual physical matter forms. They are so dense for colored light waves, unless people can touch them, they will never
know if what they are seeing is reality or illusion.

There was a great deal of missing steel. That was self-evident. DEW literally rips apart molecules, leaving particles of fine solid dust molecules
still bonded or nothing at all but gases. I have to agree with Dr. Wood. I do not prefer the word "dustification". I prefer molecular
disintegration instead. It is far more explanatory.

What masses are you referring to exactly? I think we should FOIA how much steel was shipped to China and India and compare it to what the buildings
were constructed with as far as quantities.

Please look over some of the images from this page. You will see how buildings nearby had random holes top-down. Obviously these "other" buildings
were WTC and Larry Silverstein was well compensated. www.drjudywood.com...

This one shows you what little steel was left. It looks like scraps of sticks, not the tons upon tons that should be there. Also, please read my
earlier posts on the size of the debris pile and how it does not coincide with the quantity of material present.

DEW was not used for any type of internal cutting. It was used to levitate (anti-gravity), out of attachment collars holding continuously supporting
of each center core beam support. Then high level electromagnetic energy was used to implode and molecularly disintegrate almost everything in both
buildings.

The core beams were cast in shorter lengths, but longer than normal, and certainly massively larger in density. They were then stacked one on top of
the other as individual continuous units, joined by attachment collars, bolts and welding at each floor level and topped with massive tons of hat
trusses.

Those columns in collars and the collars were then attached with more than a few 2" diameter steel bolts, to each horizontal floor level beam running
the entire length and width of the vertical core supports. Inside the core was first floor to roof more steel framing. DEW can definitely break all
steel free from collars or any other attachment, and literally levitate all weigh and mass at each floor level of the twin towers to do it.

The only steel actually cut by some type of beam was the facade and perimeter steel framing. That is self-evident, based on photos across the
Internet of the WTC 1 "hole in the wall".

That is how powerful lasers can be when used as weapons of mass destruction. Those lasers contain an enormous volume of thermal energy which can cut
through structural steel before anyone realizes a beam of energy has been used.

There had to be conventional explosives at the lower levels to explain what happened to Rodriguez and crew down in the basement levels. There were
massive explosions that tore the lobby area of the Towers to shreds, so explosives were used down low also. I am sure that throughout the buildings
there was some extra cutting agents and other exploives to augment the effect of the DEW: The perps had to have a few systems running to insure
success in case of a problem with one system. these guys are playing for keeps: Murder is not a minor issue, and mass murder is a serious thing.

The explosives were probably placed at critical junctures where they had to start the fall: They could direct the area of the ' strike ' and
predict which floors would be involved, and they could place enough explosives and cutting agents like thermite to insure that when it came time for
the ' big drop ', they could make a realistic looking scene in which it appears that the upper section above the strike zone is suddenly allowed to
drop staright down due to the underneath simply losing all resistance!! That in itself is a dead giveaway to a pro, but to the casual TV viewer
listening to the liars it might appear so.

Then, when they blow the supports under the section, all at once and universally across the entire span of the Tower ( both times!!) the
dustification begins. We see the section drop into a cloud generated by the initial explosions at the strike levels, in a row, straight across (!!)
and then the section does not reappear as one would expect...NO!! What does it do? It turns into dust just like the rest of the building!! Imagine
that!

ONLY a DEW can account for the almosy unbelievable energy needed to tear the molecular structure of those Towers apart and turn the entire area into
a smoking and ruined mess, for blocks around; but, in specific ways and areas.

If one takes the cars and their condition, the holes in the area, the actual way the Towers blew apart and turned to dust, and the fact that we can
see the core, steel so robust that there is no way possible on earth or in hell for it to turn to dust from gravity or fire being close to it or
affecting it. The core seen standing for a few moments and then simply turning to dust is a giveaway...a totally smoking gun...proof POSITIVE that an
energy force was used that exceeds BY FAR, too far to even contemplate,the energy in gravity or fire. Dustification of steel means only one thing:
DEW.

Is there really any other choice that fufills the various elements? No.

Does anyone have a link to a trustworthy source of info on how much steel was recovered from the site compared to the volume of steel used in
construction?
Just to get an idea of how much steel could have been 'dustified' by whatever method.

Wasn't all the rubble including steel removed to the Staten Island landfill initially? Apart from several reported truckloads of steel
misappropriated in unscrupulous scrap deals but those were forced to be returned (or was it just the ones they knew about). There it was sorted
through for clues and human remains, personal effects of victims etc.

There would have to be an account somewhere of how many tons of scrap steel were actually handled with the going rate for steel scrap being about
$120/ton.

There is none. FEMA told NIST what they could have. And the rest was immediately hauled off by sub-contractors hired by FEMA or someone at the
highest bureaucratic levels. The trucks had GPS on them to ensure what was hauled was not going to be moved anywhere, but where FEMA told them to
move it.

FBI was forbidden access to forensically examine all evidence at crimes scenes, as was anyone else qualified to forensically examine. FEMA took total
control.

reply to post by Griff
Sorry Griff - almost missed your post at the bottom of page 2

How the WTC2 collapse started is the big question alright
I know what you mean about the missing upward pull on the north side but isn't that assuming the core acting as a fulcrum in which case the upper
section would have a little more balance?

The core appears to have failed completely at the impact zone allowing the upper section to drop down using the mostly intact north side as a hinge
until that hinge broke. It wouldn't take much horizontal displacement of the upper section for the broken core column ends to slide past each other
somewhat like the ends of broken bones do but in this case the 'tissue' being torn was the floors of the building.

I've watched the start of that collapse many times and there's no sign of any explosions cutting the core which would have been very visible in all
that smoke. Also the smoke didn't change colour or move more vigorously as it would if a large amount of thermite was ignited. The smoke indicates
nothing explosive happening immediately before the top section was visibly moving IE nothing increasing the rate of smoke production. The only signs
were the walls - buckling as they strained the remaining trusses until the bolts attaching them to the truss seats were sheared.

That's just my intepretation of what I see and I can accept being totally wrong about it. I may carry on a lot about the smoke but it speaks volumes
about what is or isn't going on behind it or through it (like energy beams).

If explosives are there they have to be totally smokeless, producing no gases or changes in air pressure which would imply they were heatless as well.

Originally posted by Pilgrumreply to post by Griff
Sorry Griff - almost missed your post at the bottom of page 2

How the WTC2 collapse started is the big question alright
I know what you mean about the missing upward pull on the north side but isn't that assuming the core acting as a fulcrum in which case the upper
section would have a little more balance?

The core appears to have failed completely at the impact zone allowing the upper section to drop down using the mostly intact north side as a hinge
until that hinge broke. It wouldn't take much horizontal displacement of the upper section for the broken core column ends to slide past each other
somewhat like the ends of broken bones do but in this case the 'tissue' being torn was the floors of the building.

That's basically what I'm saying. I've held on to the idea that the inner core had to collapse first in order for what we see happening.

I've watched the start of that collapse many times and there's no sign of any explosions cutting the core which would have been very visible
in all that smoke. Also the smoke didn't change colour or move more vigorously as it would if a large amount of thermite was ignited. The smoke
indicates nothing explosive happening immediately before the top section was visibly moving IE nothing increasing the rate of smoke production. The
only signs were the walls - buckling as they strained the remaining trusses until the bolts attaching them to the truss seats were sheared.

In your view, could this have happened if thermite was used to sever horizontal beams (at key locations) for the columns in the core inducing Euler
buckling? That would solve the "thermite can't cut horizontally" argument I believe.

If explosives are there they have to be totally smokeless, producing no gases or changes in air pressure which would imply they were heatless
as well.

Don't forget soundless.

Was it Damocles who coined "hush-a-boom" bombs or was it Howard Roarke?

What about the row of fire that erupted as the plunge downward started? Recall that line of fire belching out as the section starts to fall? That was
not fire that came from the inner fires, it went in a line across the whole Tower just prior to dropping.

Fire erupts in a straight line across the Tower, and then it drops.The point is that the underneath gave way all at once symmetriclly along the
building; what causes the entire length of the Tower to suddenly lose all resistance? That is the question.

We KNOW that DEW is the only explanation, and the best one. Secret technology: What could work better than that?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.